Is it possible to be a Christian and a believer in Islam?

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Could a fallen angel have known that stuff likewise? Remember that was Muhammad's first reaction to the Shining one he encountered in the cave.

What do you mean a fallen angel?

Could a super creature with supremely advanced knowledge of science, physics, astronomy, and human anatomy also known the things mentioned previously?

logical7

well yes, i agree with you. The question however is not what luke believes, luke is not even an eyewitness, he is a student of paul who is also not an eyewitness. It doesnt matter if luke worships paul or thinks him as god.

Actually, whether and to what extent Luke the Evangelist was associated with Paul is a subject of some uncerainty, and depends principally on how the reader interprets some passages in Acts. In any case, Luke does not worship Paul, nor does Luke consider Paul to be God.

Our question is very much what Luke believes about Jesus, however, since Luke is the author of the piece, and he has chosen this incident because it advances his narrative purpose. The controversy, you will recall, is what Jesus is doing in the scene. Whatever it is, it is consistent with Luke's beliefs, otherwise Luke would not have included it in his book.

Also, that Luke is not a witness, which he acknowledges up front, does you no good. If the incident didn't happen at all, then it is not an example of Jesus denying anything, is it, logical Seven?

He may have said "me and my Father are one" christians interpret it as "me and my Father are 'same'"

What Christians are those? Nicene Christians believe that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the one and only God.

We muslims are free to question the meanings imposed on ambiguous and in this case a clear rhetorical quote.

I don't doubt for a moment that you're free to question somebody else's sacred texts. Was I supposed to be surprised?

This case is obviously not clearly "rhetorical," since two billion people disagree with your interpretation. You were better off with "ambiguous." Speaking of logical things, Seven, the same utterance cannot be both clear and ambiguous. Pick one, argue it, and then get back to us.

All christians are relying on luke and paul to have their belief under an assumption that Jesus... approved it!!

Well, see this is the problem. Christians believe that Jesus is alive, in a body, and at least in Paul's case, did approve it, in one or more physical encounters with Paul. Luke would have been assisted by the Holy Spirit, God, in the Nicene view, and he acknowledges the assistance of his then-living elders. On the other hand, you believe that Mohammed reports verbatim what he was told by the angel Gabriel (and some revelations of Allah by other modalities as well). and base your ideas about Jesus on those reports.

I am sure you can appreciate that we're not going to sort out here which of those views is the more common-sensical approach to understanding what Jesus' message was. As far as the topic goes, we seem to agree that the information about Jesus in the New Testament differs from the information in the Koran. Regardless of which is correct, that radical disagreement suggests it would be extremely difficult for anyone to believe both teachings.
-

You know, sometimes I dive deep into aggressive debating and apologist behaviour here, quoting each and every person who posted something wrong in the thread before me, and feel the need to correct them. Certainly nothing wrong with that, but sometimes I'm just too tired, and realise that such discussion is creating a situation where I'm only focusing on (correcting) the negative.

So this time, instead.....
As far as I see it, insofar as Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, and Zoroastrianism and even ultimately Hinduism) go, there is only one true God. You believe in the One True God, I believe in the One True God, then unless there are two true Gods or ten true Gods, we both believe in One True God. We might disagree on the details and one side may say that their instructions from the One True God are better than than the other instructions, but...there is only one. So believe your beliefs, do good deeds, try to improve yours and others lots, and in the end you will be held accountable for what you did and said.

And before a christian posts about how Christianity is purely a faiths based religion (that abandons focus or works), let me tell you, Faith without works is dead. So if you're a Christian happy in their beliefs, but doing nothing to help your fellow human, because you believe that Jesus died for your sins so you won't do anything else, then you're doing it wrong.

Originally posted by logical7
The question however is not what luke believes, luke is not even an eyewitness, he is a student of paul who is also not an eyewitness. It doesnt matter if luke worships paul or thinks him as god.

Have you read Luke? The narrative about the birth of Jesus is very intimate. The things Luke wrote about could only have come from Mary .. the mother of Jesus .. herself. He talks about what was in her heart. Only she would have known that. Luke had to be a confident of Mary.

"Mary treasured these things and pondered them in her heart".
Straight from Mary.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Until you read it yourself or at least understand the concept, you shouldn't judge it...

I've read the Qu'ran. I've read what Sharia law is.
I judge it as bad for humanity (especially women) and I reject it.
That's an educated rejection .. not a knee jerk reaction.

reply to post by eight bits

If the incident didn't happen at all, then it is not an example of Jesus denying anything, is it, logical Seven?

the incident has happened as Mark reports it too, luke is copying.
If it didn't happen it neither proves divinity nor denies it.

What Christians are those? Nicene
Christians believe that the Father and
the Son are distinct persons within the
one and only God.

oh.. 3 non mixing colours in one bottle and thats One God, in other words polytheism under a cloak of monotheism.
The language changes to suit the arguement doesn't it?
"Jesus is god", "Jesus is son and not Father", "God came down as man" etc etc
maybe you could explain it to me better even though you are an agnostic and don't believe this mumble jumble a bit.

You
were better off with "ambiguous."
Speaking of logical things, Seven, the
same utterance cannot be both clear and ambiguous. Pick one, argue it,
and then get back to us.

i was talking of 'in general' 'ambiguous' verses on which meanings are imposed. The rhetorical question in discussion is clear.

As far as the
topic goes, we seem to agree that the information about Jesus in the New
Testament differs from the information
in the Koran. Regardless of which is
correct, that radical disagreement
suggests it would be extremely
difficult for anyone to believe both teachings.

ofcourse, but after reading Qur'an, the NT starts reavealing a different Jesus pbuh the one which was forcefully removed by bashing some bible verses constantly on the heads of believing (in church to be honest) christians.
Give it a fair try if you are not afraid of reading the Qur'an.

reply to post by babloyi

As far as I see it, insofar as Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, and Zoroastrianism and even ultimately Hinduism) go, there is only one true God. You believe in the One True God, I believe in the One True God, then unless there are two true Gods or ten true Gods, we both believe in One True God.

Sadly, the Christians try and keep God all to themselves.

According to them, those who don't believe what they believe... worship "false gods".

The fact that they even acknowledge the existence of other gods makes them polytheists.

reply to post by eight bits

Nicene Christians believe that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the one and only God.

So is the Father a separate person from the one and only God?

A "father" can't beget a son, without a wife.
So according to Christianity... who is the wife who bore the "fathers" son?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
A "father" can't beget a son, without a wife.

He's God, for pete's sakes. Who are you to tell him what he can and can't do?

logical7

the incident has happened as Mark reports it too, luke is copying.

No, Luke is doing just what Luke said he was going to do. The Luke telling was proposed, another member on your side agreed that that was the version we would discuss, and so we have been. Luke is perfectly capable of including or excluding material, according to whether it advances his narrative purpose. Whether he got this from Mark, or got it from Mark's source, Luke decided to include this. So we know what Luke thinks Jesus is saying.

If it didn't happen it neither proves divinity nor denies it.

Ah, you're catching on. So here's the thing. What the Green Team said was that the pericope showed Jesus denying his divinity. So, if the event didn't happen, whose position is affected?

On other matters, your views on the Trinity are all very interesting, but we get it already: Muslims don't believe in the Trinity. Christians do. So, the answer to the OP question is "No, hell no." Unless, of course, you were either your very own kind of Muslim, or your very own kind of Christian, or perhaps your very own kind of both.

ofcourse, but after reading Qur'an, the NT starts reavealing a different Jesus

I suspect you meant to say something else, but I'm not going to try to guess what. The Koran didn't exist until the Seventh Century, by which time, the New Testament canon was fixed (plus or minus some epistles that remain in or out of some churches' canons even today). So, whatever the New Testament says about Jesus, it was saying all along, and still says the same things. Nothing I can do will change that.

I actually have read what the Koran has to say about Jesus (and perhaps a bit more besides). I liked the mash-up of anti-Christian knock-offs better in Mohammed's antecedents.

adj

For Pete's sakes? That so mid-western .

No You cannot be a Christian and believe in Islam. But you can be a Muslim and believe in Jesus and Christianity the origin, not as the "corrupted" one we have today.

The christian religion is built based on the bases of trinity, Jesus is God in the flesh, which makes a lot of Christians confused, some call him the son of god , some call him god, some even call him a prophet Christians also believe that Jesus died on the cross for humankind's sins. A lot of Christians believe that you have to accept Jesus as your savior so your sins can be erased and you go to heaven

The Islamic religion is built on the basis that God is one and only one, God begets not, nor is he begotten. And it completely denies the holy trinity in the scriptures.
Jesus is a prophet and a messenger of god like Mohammed and Moses . They believe that he was not crucified, he was elevated to the heavens. The person who died on the cross was not Jesus, God transformed another person to appear exactly like Jesus who was crucified instead of Jesus. Jesus ascended bodily to Heaven, there to remain until his Second coming in the End days. There is no sin savior in islam. You do not go to heaven if you just believe in the religion, you have to follow the teachings. Basically for Muslims, life is a Test, you will be judged for your sins and awarded for your good deeds.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Until you read it yourself or at least understand the concept, you shouldn't judge it...

I've read the Qu'ran. I've read what Sharia law is.
I judge it as bad for humanity (especially women) and I reject it.
That's an educated rejection .. not a knee jerk reaction.

You do realise that if you were to read the Hebrew Bible, Mohammed is recognised as one of the last prophets? He name meant the "Comforter". Maybe you show go and read a bit of John...

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Until you read it yourself or at least understand the concept, you shouldn't judge it...

I've read the Qu'ran. I've read what Sharia law is.
I judge it as bad for humanity (especially women) and I reject it.
That's an educated rejection .. not a knee jerk reaction.

You do realise that if you were to read the Hebrew Bible, Mohammed is recognised as one of the last prophets? He name meant the "Comforter". Maybe you show go and read a bit of John...

[Qur’an 2:6-7]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DarknStormy
But now what your saying is a miracle because how does an illiterate person steal something that has already been written when he cannot read and write?

Dude ... those stories had been around for thousands of years. He'd heard them over and over. Everyone had. Heck .. even today people who can't read or write will say that they are 'in 7th heaven' when happy ... but they don't know that the phrase comes from ancient Summeria. There was no miracle to Muhammad taking the stories he had heard since he was a kid and rewriting them ... POORLY rewriting them at that. He dictated what he had heard .. misquoting the stories ... NO MIRACLE.

edit on 3/20/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

[ When to them our verses are recited, "Tales of the ancients", they cry] Quran 68:15

Originally posted by Bybyots
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

 

Is it possible to be a Christian and a believer in Islam?

Who's going to stop you?

2nd.

Agree. One could believe in Christianity, Islam, porn and greed. It's up to each of us to justify in our own minds what is right or wrong, and every religious individual does it.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Song of Songs 5:10 says: "My beloved is white and ruddy, pre-eminent above ten thousand." This is a prophecy of Prophet Muhammad as he conquered Mecca. It is a well known historically documented fact that in the year 630 CE Muhammad entered Mecca as the leader of an army of "ten thousand men".

In reading the English translation of Song of Songs 5:16 it finishes the description by saying: "He is altogether lovely" but what most people don't know is that the name of that man was given in the original megilot. Here is the name written in ancient Hebrew as it appears in verse sixteen: מחמד . It is read as : "Mahammad".

Now how can that possibly happen since you people are so sure Mohammed is a pedphile who slaughtered thousands of corrupt politicians? Are you saying your own bible lies?

reply to post by DarknStormy


You've obviously never read The Song of Songs if you think that refers to Muhammed, or you want it to.

Oh, and as to accuracy:

Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root ([1], [2])

But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.

The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs. (Source)

reply to post by adjensen


I'm sure you have read the Hebrew Bible many times also... Jewish Rabbis even agree that Mohammed was spoken of just like Jesus but when it comes down to it, Jews do not accept the Messiahs of different tribes. I find it Ironic the bible is so accurate yet they didn't see the Islamic prophet coming in the future?

As for your link, its just another christian website who will do anything to discredit any connection with Islam.. Why is it so hard to believe that maybe your religion does share a history with Muslims, you know, since it came from that part of the world in the first place?

Originally posted by DarknStormy
As for your link, its just another christian website who will do anything to discredit any connection with Islam..

Did you even bother to read it? The word that you're claiming is Muhammed's name isn't a name at all -- it's a descriptive word that appears elsewhere in the Bible, and in one instance, it is applied to a woman. And as for The Song of Solomon being prophecy... the book is essentially erotica, and the person being described is a woman's lover.

Don't know who it is, but it sure isn't Muhammed and, like I said earlier, I don't know why you'd want it to be.

Why is it so hard to believe that maybe your religion does share a history with Muslims, you know, since it came from that part of the world in the first place?

When did I say Christianity didn't share a history with Islam?

However, Christianity is, essentially, a Jewish sect. That's why we include the Hebrew Bible in scripture and look for signs of Christ in its words. Are you claiming that Islam is a Jewish sect, as well?

reply to post by adjensen


So why would it be so hard to believe that the bible predicts the arrival of Mohammed?